ID in public schools

[ricmat]

It only demonstrates that natural selection is a much better problem-solver than design.

It proves that trial and error is sometimes useful if you have an extremely large number of trials over a short period of time.

This is EXACTLY why I’m asking for the time line on evolution in the other thread. How long does each step (mutation + natural selection) take? Then add them all up and see how long the entire process takes. Does “trial and error” get you there in 4.5 billion years or not?

The answer I’ve gotten from more than one poster is that “We know that life formed 4.5 billion years ago, and that we have complex life now. Therefore, evolution did it. Somehow.”

I’m still waiting for the individual times, and the aggregate roll up.

 

[ricmat]

It only demonstrates that natural selection is a much better problem-solver than design.

I can see it now. Barbarian is hired as an evolutionary breeding expert at a horse farm. The owner says, “Barbarian, I want to breed some really large horses.” Barbarian goes to work.

Barbarian thinks, “Should I design things such that only the large horses breed with each other, or should I use trial and error? I know, I’ll use trial and error, that works much better than design. I learned that in Science.”

 

[reggieM]

Perhaps the horses will just mutate into bigger and better animals (with the sure help of natural selection, of course).

If he’s raising race horses that way I’ll be sure to bet against them.

 

[Wolseley]

It proves that trial and error is sometimes useful if you have an extremely large number of trials over a short period of time.

This is EXACTLY why I’m asking for the time line on evolution in the other thread. How long does each step (mutation + natural selection) take? Then add them all up and see how long the entire process takes. Does “trial and error” get you there in 4.5 billion years or not?

The answer I’ve gotten from more than one poster is that “We know that life formed 4.5 billion years ago, and that we have complex life now. Therefore, evolution did it. Somehow.”

I’m still waiting for the individual times, and the aggregate roll up.

And you’re liable to be waiting for a long, long, long time, ric.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian discussing natural selection:
It only demonstrates that natural selection is a much better problem-solver than design.

I can see it now. Barbarian is hired as an evolutionary breeding expert at a horse farm. The owner says, “Barbarian, I want to breed some really large horses.” Barbarian goes to work.

Barbarian thinks, “Should I design things such that only the large horses breed with each other, or should I use trial and error? I know, I’ll use trial and error, that works much better than design. I learned that in Science.”

Actually, Darwin got his idea for natural selection from animal breeders. He wrote a lot about those. What do animal breeders do, if they want a new trait? They breed a lot of animals. Then they pick the ones most like their desired form, and only breed them next. And so on. Works exceptionally well. It turns out that it works much better than design.

That is still the way it’s done. Does that surprise you?

 

[The_Barbarian]

This is EXACTLY why I’m asking for the time line on evolution in the other thread. How long does each step (mutation + natural selection) take?

Ah, I get it. You’re thinking some kind of “evolution timer” is at work. It’s not like that. Evolution is the result of interaction between a population and the environment. If the population is well-adapted and the envirionment is stable, then natural selection will actually prevent evolution from proceding or greatly slow it down. If there’s lots of open niches, natural selection will tend to split the population into different species. If there’s few niches and the population is not well-fitted, it tends to speed evolution. There is no “standard evolutionary time.”

The answer I’ve gotten from more than one poster is that “We know that life formed 4.5 billion years ago, and that we have complex life now. Therefore, evolution did it. Somehow.”

I’ve looked back a long way here, and can’t find that statement from any person who accepts evolution. I’m guessing you made it up.

 

[ricmat]

Barbarian discussing natural selection:
It only demonstrates that natural selection is a much better problem-solver than design.

Actually, Darwin got his idea for natural selection from animal breeders. He wrote a lot about those. What do animal breeders do, if they want a new trait? They breed a lot of animals. Then they pick the ones most like their desired form, and only breed them next. And so on. Works exceptionally well. It turns out that it works much better than design.

That is still the way it’s done. Does that surprise you?

Barbarian, sometimes you surprise me.

Selective breeding, picking out the ones most like the desired form, is a designed (guided) process. As opposed to a random trial and error process. Yes, I agree that the designed process works exceptionally well.

 

[ricmat]

Ricmat said: The answer I’ve gotten from more than one poster is that “We know that life formed 4.5 billion years ago, and that we have complex life now. Therefore, evolution did it. Somehow.”

I’ve looked back a long way here, and can’t find that statement from any person who accepts evolution. I’m guessing you made it up.
Reply With Quote

I’ve substituted “Therefore, evolution did it. Somehow.” for lack of information, like, which mutations occurred, and in what order, and with what dependencies, and how long was it until the next mutation could occur (e.g. growth to maturity of the previous organism).

 

[rossum]

Barbarian, sometimes you surprise me.

Selective breeding, picking out the ones most like the desired form, is a designed (guided) process. As opposed to a random trial and error process. Yes, I agree that the designed process works exceptionally well.

Selective breeding is precisely what natural selection does. The first is artificial selection the second is natural selection. Those organisms that survive long enough and fulfill all the requirements will breed, those that die young or do not fulfill all the requirements do not. Those that better meet the requirements will tend to breed more than those that meet them less well. That is a program of selective breding.

rossum

 

[ricmat]

Selective breeding is precisely what natural selection does. The first is artificial selection the second is natural selection. Those organisms that survive long enough and fulfill all the requirements will breed, those that die young or do not fulfill all the requirements do not. Those that better meet the requirements will tend to breed more than those that meet them less well. That is a program of selective breding.

rossum

Yes, I know.

Barbarian had previously stated regarding “genetic algorithms” that “It only demonstrates that natural selection is a much better problem-solver than design.”

I posited the scenario regarding selective breeding, which is a designed (or guided if you prefer) process, versus a trial and error process (genetic algorithms). It’s obvious to me in that scenario that the guided/designed process which actually IS selective breeding, works better (it gets you bigger horses faster) than a trial and error process.

Certainly this is obvious to you too, right?

I don’t want to get deep into this since I’ve committed to my wife to give evolution less attention and her more attention. So if you disagree, we’ll just leave it at that.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Sorry–the multiplicity of negatives in that sentence is confoozin’. So you’re saying that you do believe in a God creator who apparently chose the medium of evolution as a method for changing life over time?

How does that negate the concept of intelligent design? If that were true, it would still be “design,” and there’s still a major Intelligence behind it.

DaveBj

Yep you got it. It doesn’t negate ID. ID is just a lousy word choice nowadays since the creationists ruined it by trying to pass creationism off as ID. So ID looks really suspicious now. I have no problem with anyone attempting to find some “evidence” that shows supernatural means of creation. If they do, present it and if it tests out, we got us a whole new discipline of science. So far, its not proved to have any scientifically testable premises nor produced any results nor predicted a thing. All that is required to be a scientific theory.

I surely don’t believe the universe came into existence by some chance occurance. i believe God spoke his work and the universe “exploded” into being. It has the necessary laws and elements to over time perfectly accomplish God’s plan. Thats what I believe.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Created. With no planning, organizing, figuring out, or design necessary. God is much more powerful and capable than IDers would like Him to be.

Query: why would ID’ers like God to be less involved? I’m not at all clear why they would. I would think they would be arguing the more God side. I’m puzzled. Perhaps an ID person can answer?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

That should be a tip-off in itself, um?

The difference is that Christians don’t feel compelled to have science support their religious beliefs, and IDers do. I realize some Christians accept ID, but it is not a Christian doctrine.

The difference is succinctly stated. This is correct as I see it. Theistic evolutionists know that their addiiton of God is a theological statement. ID’ers believe their addition of God is a scientific statement. Big difference. Scientists simply don’t recognize the validity of ID “science”

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Apparently, Barbarian thinks he knows the mind of God. It seems the consequences of putting ID into public schools would be minimal. The fallout would be primarily ideological, with the ‘fundies’ gaining dollars and some bit of power. I think Intelligent Design is an excellent and workable concept that fits into what God can do.

Ed again, you make statements and nowhere tell us what you are referring to in criticizing others. Do you realize how unfair that is? there are consequences to putting ID into schools. I’ve asked you to address that problem at least a dozen times. What kind of statement do you require? How many other relgiious groups have to sign on or are they required to have their children taught what you believe? The fallout is poorly taught children who are then asked to compete against the world in science with one arm tied behind them. Ed…your opinion that ID is “excellent” and “workable” is based on what? You never answer questions Ed…you just make these statements that on their face are either wrong or so simplistic as to be clearly limited to the most basic of ideas. You continue to make statements that suggests you understand evolution poorly at best, yet you feel competent to claim that ID is “excellent and workable” ?

It would not surprise me if it comes out that ID was a concept that was derailed by purely political forces bent on developing a secular-humanist America. It does not appear that their momentum can be maintained in light of the power of God.
Ed

Would that be the atheist, secularist, communist, or scientific plot to keep American from more fully embracing God? Given that over 90% believe in God one could assume they have been quite unsucessful. Yes God will undoubtedly mke sure we continue to walk in light.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Bingo!

It is precisely because there is NOT “irreducible complexity” in evolution that is leading programmers to utilize such ideas in the development of new programs and algorithms. God is such a good designer that He has established systems that automatically give rise to His designs; there is absolutely no need whatsoever for God to miraculously intervene to make a bacterium develop a tail, for example. In short, the best proof of God that the evolutionary system offers up is that it DOESN’T require intelligent “intervention”, but rather operates according to its design naturally.

What many ID proponents seem to fail to understand is that the lack of “irreducible complexity” doesn’t eliminate the need for an intelligence behind the system (basic philosophy has proven the need for such an intelligence since the time of Plato and Aristotle; it is only modern atheists who seem to have cut themselves off from this fundamental principle of human reason, proving the Scriptural bit of wisdom: “the fool has said there is no God”). This is why real proof of God is best left to philosophy and theology, rather than to material science which can’t really touch on the substance of the matter. Only God can supply the “nature” of the evolutionary process, and only God can constantly give being to all things that grow and change (i.e. everything that exists). Nothing needs to be irreducibly complex to prove/necessitate an active deity.

We can’t deduce God purely through studying mechanics; even examining a watch scientifically doesn’t tell you that there is a creator behind it! What’s more, the philosophical proofs for God don’t touch on “irreducible complexity”, but rather on the fact that mechanisms don’t set themselves in motion to act in a certain way (Aquinas’ Fifth Proof, often called the “Proof from Design”, but not at all the same as the “proof” ID utilizes).

Remember, the God we believe in is not just the author of intentional occurances, but is ALSO the author of “pure chance”. In fact, God’s will is so utterly all-pervasive that nothing can be called “chance” in relation to God, but can be called chance within the system of creatures. God is the cause of all cause, including chance causes.

Peace and God bless!

LOL…I always appreciate it when I fumble through 10 posts to say something and then some smartypants comes along and says what I mean quicker and better than I ever could have…

I would dearly love for science to prove the existence of God. Nothing would make me happier. My gut says it will never happen because the point is Faith, not proof. I think God is never gonna make it that easy.

 

[ricmat]

Query: why would ID’ers like God to be less involved? I’m not at all clear why they would. I would think they would be arguing the more God side. I’m puzzled. Perhaps an ID person can answer?

OK - one last post, to try to help clear things up. I’m done arguing at the request of my wife and another poster.

Atheists think God wasn’t involved (since there is no God).

Creationists think God created everything in 6 days, and then… (not sure).

Spritmeadow, etc. I think believes that God created everything in the beginning, and got it so right that no further intervention is necessary. Excuse me if I got that wrong.

Ricmat (as one example), and many ID’rs I suspect, believe that God created everything in the beginning, and stayed involved in things like…evolution, the flood, the plagues of Egypt. the incarnation. etc. God seems to like to interact with his creation, like an orchestra conductor. Don’t ask me why because I don’t know. And perhaps God left us some tracks (aspects of design) of both his initial “created everything” as well as his interactions for us to discover, to better help us appreciate his works. This is actually the “God-is-most-involved” position from my perspective.

This doesn’t mean that God is less powerful than if he chose to wind things up and then take his hands off the wheel. God does what he wants because he’s God.

There are probably some other points of view that aren’t accommodated in the above descriptions. But I think that the premise that ID is associated with “God is less involved” is not correct.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I would guess that this “genetic algorithm” technique has become possible only because the newest computers are capable of running through incredible numbers of possible combinations in a short time. Hence “trial and error” has become a practical technique.

This proves nothing either way about the subject under discussion.

I just sit on the sidelines and watch non-scientists attempt to refute scientists because for some reason it matters to them that ID be adopted. I can’t help but find that it threatens some’s faith. I can come up with no better reason. I certainly don’t argue with my doctor about his diagnosis and proposed treatment. I may doublcheck with another DOCTOR but I sure don’t start researching and deciding I can debate the issue with her.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
I’ve looked back a long way here, and can’t find that statement from any person who accepts evolution. I’m guessing you made it up.

I’ve substituted “Therefore, evolution did it. Somehow.” for lack of information, like, which mutations occurred, and in what order, and with what dependencies, and how long was it until the next mutation could occur (e.g. growth to maturity of the previous organism).

I appreciate you coming clean about that. It is astonishing that you just ignored DNA evidence, fossil record, observed speciation, etc. Can we expect you to avoid faked quotes in the future?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian, sometimes you surprise me.

That happens a lot. I think it’s due to the poor state of science education in this country. You’re not the first person to be shocked to discover that animal breeding does what natural selection does.

Selective breeding, picking out the ones most like the desired form, is a designed (guided) process.

Natural selection does that with no evidence of design. So no, you’re wrong about that.

As opposed to a random trial and error process.

Animal breeders to a random trial and error process in breeding. They only breed a fraction of the ones that are born.

Yes, I agree that the designed process works exceptionally well.

As you learned, for complex things like breeding organisms or improving diesel engines, natural selection works better than design.

That’s why engineers began to use natural selection. It’s a better way.

 

[ricmat]

Barbarian observes:
I’ve looked back a long way here, and can’t find that statement from any person who accepts evolution. I’m guessing you made it up.

I appreciate you coming clean about that. It is astonishing that you just ignored DNA evidence, fossil record, observed speciation, etc. Can we expect you to avoid faked quotes in the future?

Aha…Barbarian just discovered that his argument in favor of trial and error being better than design was actually an argument favor of design. I guess that made him mad.

I am not ignoring any evidence. I’ve stated many times that I accept the vast majority of evolution evidence. But any evidence of a detailed time line, or list of what mutations occurred in what order is missing.

Many people on this forum have said that they believe that life started 4.5 billion years ago. And that complex life exists now. You believe this yourself, do you not.

When I question the details, what I hear on this thread is “we don’t have the details.” My interpretation of this is that this is equivalent to evolution did it somehow. That’s how I see the answer.

If I wanted to fake a quote, I’d say something like “Mr. XYZ stated the following ‘…faked quote here…’”